 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 09:27:09 -0700, Darren New wrote:
>
>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> The judge *could* declare a mistrial, but maybe not after the case goes
>>> to the jury.
>> I believe that's correct. Personally, I don't understand why they're
>> allowed to call a mistrial in the *middle* of a trial for conduct of the
>> prosecutors, myself, but I'm not a lawyer. (Mistrial because the entire
>> jury got hit by a bus or something, sure.)
>
> I think because if the lawyers don't follow the rules, what they do could
> mislead the jury.
Yeah. But then the lawyers could intentionally break the rules if they
think they're losing, and get another chance. If the courtroom
prosecution lawyer can't handle the rules, the suspect should go free,
not stand trial again.
Maybe I wasn't clear. :-)
> Well, I think that depends on the court - in the drug case I sat on the
> jury for, the judge and I discussed the case once it was done
That's different. You brought it up. :-)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
"That's pretty. Where's that?"
"It's the Age of Channelwood."
"We should go there on vacation some time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 16:32:51 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 09:27:09 -0700, Darren New wrote:
>>
>>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>> The judge *could* declare a mistrial, but maybe not after the case
>>>> goes to the jury.
>>> I believe that's correct. Personally, I don't understand why they're
>>> allowed to call a mistrial in the *middle* of a trial for conduct of
>>> the prosecutors, myself, but I'm not a lawyer. (Mistrial because the
>>> entire jury got hit by a bus or something, sure.)
>>
>> I think because if the lawyers don't follow the rules, what they do
>> could mislead the jury.
>
> Yeah. But then the lawyers could intentionally break the rules if they
> think they're losing, and get another chance. If the courtroom
> prosecution lawyer can't handle the rules, the suspect should go free,
> not stand trial again.
>
> Maybe I wasn't clear. :-)
>
Deliberate misconduct could get the case dismissed with prejudice. Beyond
that, if it was a well covered case, the prosecutor could face charges of
misconduct or contempt of court, and maybe even disbarment.
Chances are, a single prosecutor would only get away with that once.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 16:32:51 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 09:27:09 -0700, Darren New wrote:
>>
>>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>> The judge *could* declare a mistrial, but maybe not after the case
>>>> goes to the jury.
>>> I believe that's correct. Personally, I don't understand why they're
>>> allowed to call a mistrial in the *middle* of a trial for conduct of
>>> the prosecutors, myself, but I'm not a lawyer. (Mistrial because the
>>> entire jury got hit by a bus or something, sure.)
>>
>> I think because if the lawyers don't follow the rules, what they do
>> could mislead the jury.
>
> Yeah. But then the lawyers could intentionally break the rules if they
> think they're losing, and get another chance. If the courtroom
> prosecution lawyer can't handle the rules, the suspect should go free,
> not stand trial again.
>
> Maybe I wasn't clear. :-)
Oh, no, you were clear - the judge's job in part is to make sure that
both sides play by the rules and prevent this sort of stuff from going on.
>> Well, I think that depends on the court - in the drug case I sat on the
>> jury for, the judge and I discussed the case once it was done
>
> That's different. You brought it up. :-)
True, I did. In watching the video of the verdict in the Hans Reiser
case, I noted that the judge also indicated to the jury that the lawyers
may want to talk with them, and that he'd be around to talk with them
until around 5 PM. The judge I talked with didn't say anything about
that to us, but when we went to the jury room to gather our belongings,
the defense lawyer was there to ask questions. We got some very
interesting additional insights into the case at that point - like the
fact that the defendant was in fact guilty, but that the warrant being
served was for meth production and distribution, and the cops didn't find
that. During the case, we never knew what the warrant was for.
It would be interesting, I think, if the jury got to ask questions along
the way about the facts, kinda like is depicted in TV Grand Jury
proceedings (now there's something I would be interested in participating
in to see how it really works).
I know none of that is related to the point about the judge asking the
jury about the deliberations or the verdict, just seemed a good point to
throw that in. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospam com> wrote:
> For Chrissake, man, the first time W was elected, it was 9 people who
> decided
No it wasn't. Millions of people voted.
Just because approximately half of the people voted for and the other
half against doesn't mean that the votes were null, void and ignored.
It was still an election with millions of voters.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Sabrina Kilian wrote:
> Deliberate misconduct could get the case dismissed with prejudice.
Thanks. I wasn't sure just how that worked out. I'd also add "if he got
caught" to that. :-) I guess it's pretty hard to be sneaky about such, tho.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
"That's pretty. Where's that?"
"It's the Age of Channelwood."
"We should go there on vacation some time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 05:59:10 -0400, Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> For Chrissake, man, the first time W was elected, it was 9 people who
>> decided
>
> No it wasn't. Millions of people voted.
And the votes didn't matter. The race was close enough that voting
irregularities in Florida (and in the later election in Ohio) needed to
be dealt with, but instead, 9 people decided GWB was the one for us and
disenfranchised those millions of people who voted by stopping the
recount, crowning GWB our king.
> Just because approximately half of the people voted for and the other
> half against doesn't mean that the votes were null, void and ignored. It
> was still an election with millions of voters.
Ah, so all you have to do is pretend to hold a vote and then it's OK?
How closely did you follow the 2000 election?
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 05:59:10 -0400, Warp wrote:
> > Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> >> For Chrissake, man, the first time W was elected, it was 9 people who
> >> decided
> >
> > No it wasn't. Millions of people voted.
> And the votes didn't matter.
The president was not elected by 9 people. He was elected by millions
of people. Millions of people voted for him. Without those millions of
votes he would not be a president.
Of course the votes matter.
> The race was close
Which wouldn't have happened without the millions of votes. Hence the
votes mattered.
Or are you telling me that if nobody had voted for Bush he would have
been elected by those 9 people anyways? Don't be ridiculous.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 15:43:04 -0400, Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 05:59:10 -0400, Warp wrote:
>
>> > Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> >> For Chrissake, man, the first time W was elected, it was 9 people
>> >> who decided
>> >
>> > No it wasn't. Millions of people voted.
>
>> And the votes didn't matter.
>
> The president was not elected by 9 people. He was elected by millions
> of people. Millions of people voted for him. Without those millions of
> votes he would not be a president.
>
> Of course the votes matter.
>
>> The race was close
>
> Which wouldn't have happened without the millions of votes. Hence the
> votes mattered.
>
> Or are you telling me that if nobody had voted for Bush he would have
> been elected by those 9 people anyways? Don't be ridiculous.
You seem to be avoiding my point. Those 9 people ultimately decided to
overrule the process. By doing so, they crowned King George, and the
"will of the people" be damned.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> You seem to be avoiding my point.
No, it's you who is avoiding my point. You don't even want to aknowledge
that you understand what I'm saying (regardless of whether you agree with
it or not).
Bush was elected because millions of people voted for him. If those
millions of people hadn't voted for him, he wouldn't have elected. Thus
all the millions of votes counted.
Your argument is simply ridiculous.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
<sigh>
Round and round we go, where we stop, *I* know.
Right here. ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
